Conservative media cast Democrats as "suicide bombers" in push for health care reform
Reacting to progress on health care reform legislation, conservative media figures have repeatedly referred to President Obama and Democratic officials as "health care suicide bombers" and characterized their efforts to pass a bill as "a kamizake mission" and "political suicide missions."
Limbaugh portrays Dems as "kamikaze party" and suicide bombers
Rush: "Mullah Nancy Bin Pelosi ... is no different" than those who "convince all these people to put bombs on their kids." On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said: "Here's the way we have to start looking at Nancy Pelosi: Mullah Nancy Bin Pelosi. She's no different than these mullahs and these imams who convince all these people to put bombs on their kids and send them out there to blow up. ... That's exactly what she's doing to the Democrat Party. The only thing she can't do is promise them 73 virgins or whatever it is." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/10]
Limbaugh: Dems are "the kamikaze party." In November 2009, Limbaugh said: "We're going to have to call the Democrat Party the 'kamikaze party.' " He also said that "Bill Clinton went up to the Senate yesterday and personally gave these guys instructions on how to fly their Zeros into our aircraft carriers." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/11/09]
Limbaugh: Democrats "are martyring themselves politically." Limbaugh subsequently repeated his comments that the "Democrats are a kamikaze party" and added: "They just don't know it yet. In fact, they may know it and some of them not care. They are martyring themselves politically." Later, Limbaugh said: "Democrats are the equivalent of political suicide bombers. They have strapped political bombs to themselves. They are hell-bent on taking out as many Americans as they can with them." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/20/09]
Other right-wing media figures follow suit
Carlson: Obama is telling Democrats to "go on a kamikaze mission." On Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson commented that Obama's position on health care was, "If you're a moderate Democrat, go on a kamikaze mission. Subject yourself to potential failure at the polls in the midterm elections, because you have to do this for the presidency." [Fox & Friends, 3/8/10]
Breitbart's Big Journalism calls Obama is the "suicide-bomber-in-chief." In a post on Andrew Breitbart's Big Journalism website, Frank Ross wrote: "Mark Steyn is always right, whether he's writing about Andrew Lloyd Webber or, in this case, the suicide-bomber-in-chief, Barack Obama, who doesn't much care how many Democrats get sent to the electoral Elysian Fields -- or even whether he gets a second term -- as long as he can blow up the capitalist system from within." [Big Journalism, 3/6/10]
Wash. Times' Pruden compares Democrats to suicide bombers. In his Washington Times column, editor emeritus Wesley Pruden wrote: "You have to be a true believer in Barack Obama's radical agenda to be a Democrat in Congress, and believe with the intensity of a suicide bomber. Mr. Obama can't even promise a harem of virgins in paradise." [The Washington Times, 1/19/10]
Erickson: "Dorgan and Dodd are healthcare suicide bombers." In a post on his Twitter account, RedState's Erick Erickson commented: "[Sens. Byron] Dorgan and [Chris] Dodd are healthcare suicide bombers. Instead of 72 virgins, they'll get ambassadorships." [1/6/10]
Crowley: Health care reform is Democrats' "suicide mission." Guest-hosting on Fox News' O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Monica Crowley said: "Well, the Democrats intent on flying a suicide mission, and some Democrats already bailing out of the plane." [The O'Reilly Factor, 12/23/09]
A very insightful comment. Who do you think writes those daily memes?
We've had:
- death panels
- nuclear option
- suicide / kamikaze
Let's pick out 10 days of escalating fear-mongering memes.
- rape
- sodomy
- ?
-bestiality
-reading (oops!)
As for the GOP, these guys on the far right refuse to cooperate and then they get bent out of shape when liberals carry out the public's will.
Now that you have had your lesson go run and play with the other little ignorant children in this room.
Look man, deregulation is killing American capitalism and concentrating ownership into the hands of a very few.
But if you want to talk about benevolence, look at all those rich bastards who shut down factories in set up shop outside of the U.S. because darn it, Americans just won't accept poverty wages. Talk about compassion and patriotism. At least our government is accountable to us, you won't get that in the corporate world where absolutely anything goes and you're usually rewarded for sociopathic behavior.
And shoo dog, despite your "code red" scare tactics, public entities still compete with private interests and both do well. Look at public universities and the post office. Ain't nobody going under because of some competition.
The post office has been in the red for many years now while UPS (UPS is losing ground though because of their unions) and Fedex actually turn a profit. The universities in my state have laid off many personnel in order to make budget and are now having professors who write their own pay in grants turn that over to the university. However, private universities are flourishing.
And the reason business are moving overseas is because of the second highest corporate tax in the world thanks to your all loving federal government and unions. Now go choke on the facts and comeback with some more made up excrement.
Every time I hear the phrase, 'tax cut,' I see classrooms overflowing, bridges collapsing, levees bursting and roads crumbling.
You are quite simply lying about the corporate tax rate. In the last seven years, the U.S. has collected an average of 2.4% of its GDP in corporate taxes; less than the average 3.4% collected by other industrialized nations. If laws remain the same, U.S. corporate taxes will be only 1.9% of GDP in less than ten years.
According to the World Bank and PricewaterhouseCoopers, the United States' total corporate tax burden ranks 76th of over 100 countries (World Bank.) When Republicans say that the U.S. tax rate is high, they're talking about the 'statutory rate.' But corporations treat the statutory rate as just a guideline. They use offshore tax havens and accounting loopholes to pay much lower actual rates. The tax rate corporations actually pay is lower than the rates of China.
Don't even get me started on how ridiculously low the capital gains tax has gone. Seriously, you want to reward some schmuck for gambling in the stock market, for pushing papers? Whatever, we honor work in this country. Raise the h*ll out of capital gains tax and leave income taxes for working people alone.
Don't blame unions for the crushing greed of companies who want nothing more than to pay poverty wages for all. Meanwhile, corporate profits soar, bonuses and salaries are up for CEO's and real wages for working people stagnate. It's retarded. Get off your unhealthy obsession with corporate profit and take a look at how conservative capitalism is killing America.
Why do you want people to work for less? Why do you think government should not work for people?
Maybe you should move to Somalia where there's no pesky taxes because there's no pesky government to tell you how to live? You'd fit right in.
You gonna actually have to understand Corporate tax rate and FDI before you just copy and paste portions of articles from Fortune or Smartmoney or any other website when you do your research. Based on what you have written you don't have a clue.
The reason FDI is high IS because the corporate tax rate is so high. In other words, when you complete your 1040 et al. tax forms this year, according to your logic, you look for ways that you can PAY MORE taxes to the government. I doubt it. Like most liberals you are great at spending other people's money. Corporations look for ways to save money so they don't have to pass it on to consumers. There is NO TAX on corporations because any tax they assume is passed on to consumers.
Capital gains, again, your clueless. Do you have a 401k? If you do you better hope those that invest in the stock market make money for your retirement. In addition, individuals that invest are being taxed twice with capital gains. Read carefully. You earn an income that has already been taxed (income tax), you take some of that income and invest in a stock. It is a risk you take. You may make money if the stock gains you may lose money if the stock falters. If you gain money in your risk of investment and sell it then you pay ANOTHER tax (capital gains). Taxed twice.
If you want to watch the stock market drop like a rock, raise the capital gains tax.
This is not difficult to understand. All liberals cannot be this stupid.
Reporters have been asking the conservative Farm Bureau for years for an example of where heirs had to sell a farm to pay the taxes. So far, no reply. Duh. That's an urban myth. Don't be so gullible.
It's like a big echo chamber with you guys.
I assume you had that same view when Bush was in office and when the Dims are swept out of office 2010?
Bush was proven to be an incompetent president. Obama is competent. Didn't you see the live beat down he put on the nutjobs in Baltimore last month?
Beware the leaders that cast a tin ear to the people's will.
And as for Obama's purported competency, why must he continually campaign to audiences of regular citizens if they already support the reforms? Why are so many left leaning weekly mags speculating where Obama's disconnect is? He needs less verbiage and more visuals...he is too cool and not emotionally connecting...he has sit back and let the Congress run with his mandates and initiatives...Believe me, I've read them all and it's pretty amusing that independents and centrists in both parties who voted for him in 08 are running scared.
Because of all the misinformation being propogated through hate radio and Fox News, that's why. At least he's allowing people from all viewpoints into these events, unlike Dubya who maed his attendees sign a loyalty pledge and threw out people with pro-Democrat bumper stickers on their cars.
And, I saw the entire. uncut, Baltimore conference. It was like a run-rule softball game.
The electorate was sold on Obama in 2008, but that only mattered until they had a chance to gauge his previously unproved leadership. What has emerged is a major gap in his ability to govern, versus his ability to campaign. This is measurable and reflects as much in CNN or MSNBC or PBS polls as it does in Rasmussen or anywhere else. The fact is that at this current stage, less than half of likely voters approve the President's performance, and fewer than one in five approve of Congress. You may disagree as to why (or more likely claim that Hate Radio and Fox have poisoned the impressionable minds of the voters), but November 2008 was an age ago from the standpoint of the present situation.
I don't know who think was reaching across the aisle and getting their hands chopped off, but I can tell you it wasn't Republicans who were willing to work together.
Seems as though, once again, IOKIYAR, but if the democrats look for a simple majority vote, we're the devil incarnate and the country is coming to an end.
My, their hyperbole and rhetoric is ridiculous.
Being the party in power changes things. It truly does, and the Dems and the people's reaction to them is proof. With Congressional approval ratings in the dumps, it is hard to see any other conclusion.
That's not a Democrat or Republican theme-- both stick to high hell right now and deserve the low ratings.
My opinion is not that people want bipartisanship on this issue ie they don't want people to get along for getting along's sake. Rather, they want Congress to listen to what they are saying. From what I can tell, polls show (at least as of late last week) most did not want the current HC bill to go through. Yet, Nancy and Co continue to say they will push it through, despire alternatives on the table.
I think they would be better served to step back and listen to what people are saying before acting. Pushing an up and down vote when people reject what is being voted on is a problem.
I also cannot help remembering, inspired by from your post is Bush's claim he had political capital. That I think was his biggest mistake exactly because he came across as "I was elected so I will do what I want."
Nope, as it turned out, that is not what matters. Rather, what matters is what you do with it all, so Obama's pushing of the HC in a way people are doubtful of is indeed problematic.
Unfortunately that is what it means to be in a republic. However you may lose your job
Actually they do. The polling for the major tenets of the bill gets broad support. What the public doesn't want is this caricature of the bill created by conservative misinformation of which the "liberal media" has failed to correct.
Have you read any of the bill? I have, and from what I can tell there is merit to the fears of many.
Perhaps some of you have seen this, but there was a short piece sent around some time ago listing many parts of the bill. It was conservative, yes. But being skeptical I noted the provisions and looked them up. This piece was correct in most instances. But still not satisfied, went to factcheck.org, which confirmed many and seemed to disagree with interpretive aspects.
Here's the important part to remember-- interpretation matters! When a portion of the bill is vague, it must be that it is subject to interpretation. If it is subject to interpretation, the provisions can be narrowed or broadened, and experience shows that such interpretations are all too often interpreted more broadly. In this context I have no doubt that liberals would seek to broaded the provisions to include as many people and situations as possible.
So, the doubt I have exists, and is shared by many. My doubt is not fed by conservative media, or the failure to communicate the issue by the rest of the media. It is fed by simply looking at the bill itself and the reality of liberal policies.
Disagree all you want. Call me a fear monger all you want, but there is more than one way to skin a cat, ie more than one way to view any given issue. Trouble is, there is always a better way to do it. Therein lies our dispute...
I'm talking about misinformation which the so called liberal media doesn't correct.
I haven't read the bill. I've read the little snippets conservatives seem to have a problem with but I have no problem with them. I think the disconnect is that you transpose your psychotic fears on the most innocuous provisions. I don’t fear government so I don’t get paranoid about the provisions.
I don't think the average voter knows the provisions of the bill like say you or me because they don’t keep up with politics. Also, you fail to realize that a lot of liberals are against the bill because it doesn't have a government run plan. Most liberals were pushing for something along the lines of "anyone can buy into Medicare" and that's basically it but the Dems in Congress chose a different route.
I'll just say this: if you are going to call out one opf my points, please let me know what you don't like or what is missing so that I can clarify.
Simple statements like the one here, and that you often give, are not helpful and are used to shut down discussion.
First, misinformation that the liberal media doesn't correct sounds like a presentation issue in that the premise is that if only people were told the truth, they'd understand. Why isn't the liberal media giving that point of view? Here are some possibilities: they are not interested; they are not sure what to think; they know that the information being presented is correct; and there may be others not listed here. I do not know why, and won't pretend to say one of these are true. Just simply offering logical ideas that may explain their silence.
Second, I do fear overt and excessive government involvement in our lives. I like my freedom and my privacy. Once into healthcare the way it is being presented, no matter how small, it will only increase. And once the people affected start expecting the benefits, it will become a legally protected right, and then more people will be brought in. In other words, it won't grow any smaller once instituted. Further, I believe there are better ways to improve our system than to allow the government into the game beyond some areas of regulation.
On the last couple points, I agree that many people are duped from the 30 second sound bites they here on TV, but this goes both ways. (Personally, I think that is the biggest danger in America today-- the largely uninterested and uneducated public on politics and civil governance.) The second point in this last group is that most liberals wanted something more ambitious. I know that full well, which is also part of my doubt that anything put into place now will stay where it is. These same libs will only encourage its growth. I find it naive to think that once this bill passes (if it ever does) that those libs will abandon their goal of universal health care.
I do not expect you to agree, but I do appreciate the discourse.
The so called liberal media is not correcting it because they're not liberal; journalism has been reduced to stenography; and they feel the need to present both sides no matter how ridiculous - one guest is arguing 1+1 equals 2 and the other guest is saying "no it isn't" and the reporter /stenographer is letting the debate go on. Look, there are no death panels in the bill; illegal immigrants are not subsidize; abortion is not subsidize with the exception of cases involving rape, incest or life of the mother; private insurance is not banned after a certain year; the bill doesn't throw anyone in jail for not having insurance; it will not raise premiums on most people, it will lower it; etc.
Give me an example of how this bill interferes with your freedom and/or privacy.
All I wanted was to purchase insurance from the government and conservatives screamed and hollered and took away my choice.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Everyone knows liberals and all other caring and compassionate Americans want everyone to have access to the health care system when they need it and that effort won't be abandon if this bill passes or not. And as I said before, a lot of liberals are against this particular bill because it doesn't provide a government run option for them.
You're position is that if there were just the right people in there to describe what it really says, then everything be'd OK.
Because once they get into health care, they are nto getting out. Once in, thin of all the access to all the information about you they will have. I never said it had those provisions, but that does not mean they will not come later. And yes, I doubt the government and think the market system is a better system.
My point in the last bit you quote is that your (liberals in general) desire for universal health care still exists and efforts will be made to reach that point later on, if not now.
Tell that to the parents of the 5 year old who just died because his medical procedure was denied in order to fatten the wallets of the health insurance CEO's.
An issue to consider is that resources are not unlimited, and even the government will be forced to divvy up money and make tough choices.
Personally, I think insurance companies themselves are a huge source of the proble. I also tend to be a big proponent of social responsibility in corporate governance. I think they should be more willing to sacrifice a buck for the betterment of others.
But I also think it should be the corporations to do so, not the government. Therefore, I don't think the solution is in the government.
I know this is a fundamental difference with those here, but that is my opinion.
Also, many corporations have foundations with which they use for charity.
Why am I part of the problem? I actually do indeed think corporations should be less concerned with the bottom line than with the welfare of its employees.
However, it is important to remember that its resources are limited and it must often make tough decisions to balance the welfare with the health of the corporation. If a company goes out of business, no one can work there and receive any benefit and corporation cannot give anything back to the community.
I assure you, these questions plague corporations every day, and the executives are not in their office laughing at the little people on the assembly line or mail room.
One example does not prove all corps act in this manner or that they are not socially responsible.
Also, these comments are from a legislature lobbying for legislation. As part of that, there will be some hyperbole to prove the point.
I'll check out your next link, but one company and instance does not mean that all corporations or executives laugh and gramma millie.
Good way to always duck the reality of what the current system, the one you want to preserve, does. Why not at least try to address an issue for a change? Your simple little cop-outs do not add to the discussion, they just show you have textbook ways of avoiding an answer. If you can't address an issue, sorry, this means you have an invalid premise. Give up, you lost. Repeatedly.
"Trouble is that there are very likely to be similar results if government gets invovled."
Speculation, proves nothing, not demonstrable like the many real-world examples we have. Again, give up if that's all you have.
So what do you say to those being cut off every day? So you send them info on a burial plan or whut?
Actually, a good example to show what may well happen is in Britain. Even in Canada, which I understand is better than England, there are horror stories out there that come close to what was presented to me earlier.
Do we know for sure what will happen? No, I can't say for sure we will. However, I am not sure I want to risk it. The stakes are high, and what is on the table is not the best solution in my mind, and the majority of other American minds.
The stakes are high if we do nothing as well. Can you really afford a 39% rate hike and likely cancellation when Anthem Blue Cross comes calling this year, and again next year in your state? How will you pay? If you get on their mass cancellation list and you or someone in your family get sick, what's your plan? Specifics, please, weary of your unsubstantiated speculation.
Anthem BC is not coming to my state next year, and I'd love to see your info giving that number and the mass cancellations.
Specifics, please, weary of your asserting facts without giving a source.
I just used teh Googles on "Anthem Blue Cross 39%" and found plenty of stories. Pick one. I can't believe you haven't heard of this. It's been all over the news for a week. SF Gate:
Anthem Blue Cross customers got a shock this week when the health insurer informed thousands of individual policyholders that their premium rates will jump as much as 39 percent on March 1.
Avail yourself. Perhaps this wasn't covered on Faux News.
Other co's have asked for premium increases of up to 25%. But as usual, you ducked the question. Let's try again: How will you pay? This year? Next year? The year after that? You assert the health bills will raise costs, but seem oblivious to already announced hikes by ins co's. I don't get it. Why aren't you opposed to these announced hikes if you are concerned about costs? Bizarre.
Oh? You had the WH and Congress 2001-2006. If your ideas are so good and you (collectively) really want reform, why no action? Why should anyone take conservatives seriously on HCR? You have zero credibility. Right now you (collectively) still talk a good game, but your history shows that is for appearances only. If you took control of the WH and Congress tomorrow, would there be HCR? Not if you follow precedent. A teabagger leader expressly said their goal is NO reform, period. At least they're honest about wanting to keep us under the thumb of unelected cancel-happy CEOs whose job it is to prevent HC.
Who was that speaker? And do you think a single person is a voice for the entire movement?
Oh? Then list legislation authored, introduced, and passed by the republic party 2001-2006, and no fair ducking again. Tort reform cures no one, bogus issue. In TX, the pro-tort reform ads promised a 10% rate reduction, rates doubled instead. I keep asking in numerous forums, including face-to-face teabaggers who invaded our rallies and tried to disrupt them, for anyone to step forward whose rates went down, no replies so far.
Don't recall the speaker, quick clip on a cable network. Yes, I think self-proclaimed leaders speak for their entire movement. That is the definition of "leader." Duh.
Give up.
I do not think it is the only solution, and won't ever claim that this alone will be the only answer. It won't. We need more reform than that, and I personally am not sure if it is even a good option. But you asked for anything talking about reforming health care. I provided that.
As someone told me here once, I won't do your research for you. I asked you who the leader was, and I expect you to tell me. One of the difficulties with the Tea Party movement is that it is not centrally run. Voices come and claim to speak for everyone and they may not necessarily speak for everyone. So, without knowing who it is you speak of it is impossible to say if the person is legit.
WRONG. I asked for legislation authored, introduced, and PASSED. You found nothing, yet you claim you did. Perhaps if you read my entire reply, as you once said. Again, you have zero credibility. Show me the pro-patient legislation or admit the republic party's inaction proves it's not interested in ANY reform.
But on tort reform, a failed policy in many states: Sounds like you want Big Government deciding for you what a life or limb is worth. Big Government should decide, not individuals sitting on a jury of your peers. Yet another inconsistency, the sign of an illogical premise.
I say we work to limit malpractice, not deterrents to malpractice. If you remove deterrents to burglary, would you expect burglary to go up or down? The conservative Dallas Morning News did a multipage story on the net effect of TX's tort reform. They determined it was a multi-billion net loss for consumers and patients, since rates went UP and patients were stuck with sometimes huge costs. It only benefitted insurers and bad doctors. Being a potential patient, why would you want that outcome? Do you really hate yourself that much? Sorry, I just don't get conservatism. I have too much self-respect.
Certainly, it is wise to eat healthy and work out, but to me is common sense and not something that should be dictated from above.
Say what you will, but I do not find these concerns are not unreasonable, and are based on observations of what's been going on and the general sentiment from liberals in general.
Think about all the "information" nanny insurance co's have on you. You do realize they buy and sell your information, don't you? Probably not in your safe cocoon of ignorance. Any ins co safeguards there? For $10 one can get your entire medical history. And public health is a public issue, to be necessarily redundant. As Thomas Jefferson said, "If we're going to have a successful democratic society, we have to have a well educated and healthy citizenry." You say you disagree. Figures. What did the founding fathers know?
Just admit you want NO reform, as evidenced by republic party's record 2001-2006 which you support, and we can all go home. Also admit which ins co you work for.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/02/alexander-health-care-reform-a-political-kamikaze-mission-for-democrats-.html
Oh, I don't know. How 'bout ever since you display masochism such as being against the Patriot Act, using civilian trials for Islamic terrorists POW's, closing Gitmo, jailing our military heroes for something as minor as slapping a terrorist, refusing to accept GWB freed 50 million humans from horrible dictators, and things like this.
Stereotype much?
How would you like it I said the liberal movement is just a bunch of Blacks and Lazy People who just want their government checks!
FYI I don’t believe this just making a point.
It's what Republicans have done for a long time. They understand that people admire a person of conviction whether they agree with that person or not. So they fight losing battles for their 'principles.' Bunning anyone? Just watch where he ends up after he retires from politics. But you guys have that Republican welfare system that guarantees a person a well paid future after they burn up their political career for "the cause," or "the movement."
Just look at Sara Palin. She took one for the team, spread her conservative populism and blew the campaign but she's getting her just rewards from the conservative propaganda infrastructure. It's about loyalty to the message for Republicans. For good reason. It works.
You are an effing disgrace